- From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:58:07 +0000
- To: Renato Golin <renato@ebi.ac.uk>
- CC: Phillip Rhodes <mindcrime@cpphacker.co.uk>, semantic-web@w3.org, foaf-dev@lists.foaf-project.org
Being the one who kicked this off by making the original assertion (which I actually got from someone else but almost certainly mis-interpreted along the way) I feel I should give a little further input. Actually, it's _good news_ (as well as common sense) that triples don't get stored in perpetuity. I came to this from the standpoint of wanting to make the statement (in a semantic way) that foaf:Agent "will stand by the following assertions until" $date Which is a little different from a cache header... Phil. Renato Golin wrote: > > Phillip Rhodes wrote: >> In a discussion that has arisen recently on the foaf-dev list, somebody >> pointed out that they've been told that RDF triples live forever. >> That is, once something is asserted it is considered asserted until, >> as it >> was put, "the entropic heat death of the universe." > > Hi Phillip, > > This assertion is, to me, the same as to say all web pages are static, > meaning that you can cache them locally without any further attempt to > get it back from the server again. > > All web browsers have a fair cache policy which we're all used to > (Shift-F5 and stuff) so no big deal to do the same with triples and RDF > browsers. > > Also, with RDF is easier to say that site A has "the same triple as" > another site B but with different content, who will you trust? Let's say > you have a timestamp annotating the triples, would you still believe the > "newest" one? > > Site A: > renato is bad (today) > > Site B: > renato is good (10 years ago) > > It's the same with RDFAuth, you have to trust someone sometime, you need > a list of trusted sites, people, documents, beliefs. If your site says > "renato is bad" it may "like" better Site A and even automatically add > it to the "trusted sites" or even keep a score of things you agree with > the site as the "automatic trust level" as opposed to your "hardcoded > trust level" when you trust someone even if you don't agree with him/her. > > The possibilities are endless... > > cheers, > --renato > > > -- Phil Archer Chief Technical Officer, Family Online Safety Institute w. http://www.fosi.org/people/philarcher/
Received on Friday, 28 March 2008 09:58:51 UTC